Shutting Down NG Production?
By Ian Talley
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--U.S. lawmakers Tuesday unveiled a bill that industry warns could prevent development of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas by putting regulation of a key production technique under federal oversight.
It is unclear how much support the proposal could get in Congress or from the White House, but the oil and natural-gas industry has already geared up for a fight to oppose the provision given its potential impact on the sector.
The legislation would repeal an exemption for the process of "hydraulic fracturing" in the Safe Drinking Water Act that requires disclosure of the chemicals used the production process.
By forcing hydraulic water, sand and a small percentage of lubricating chemicals into unconventional types of reservoirs called tight sand and shale gas, companies are able to fracture underground rocks and release the trapped gas not traditionally accessible. States' offices, such as Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection, currently regulate the 60-year-old practice.
Despite its history, "fracking" has gained recent attention as geologists have discovered massive unconventional natural-gas resources around the U.S., multiplying estimates of the nation's future production. For example, the Marcellus deposit that lies under Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio and New York is estimated to hold more than 500 trillion cubic feet, compared to total conventional natural-gas resource estimates in the U.S. of around 378 trillion cubic feet, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
Critics of the exemption say federal oversight is needed to protect drinking-water supplies, but proponents say state regulation is sufficient. Industry officials say the EPA isn't prepared to administer oil and gas permitting and federal regulation could lead to long delays, court cases and possible permit rejections.
That's why companies such as Range Resources Corp. (RRC), EOG Resources Inc. (EOG), Devon Energy Corp. (DVN), Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA) and Chesapeake Energy Corp. (CHK) are lobbying against the measure.
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (APC) spokesman John Christinansen said given state oversight, federal regulation is unnecessary and could at the very least delay new development of unconventional natural gas. "It would result in higher energy costs because it will discourage production," he said.
Jay Ewing, the manager of completion and construction at Devon Energy's Barnett field in North Texas, says the ultimate fear of federal regulation "is totally eliminating hydraulic fracturing, and that would eliminate a lot of resources."
Pressed at a recent congressional hearing, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said her office would review the EPA's previous decisions not to push for federal regulation.
Under Carol Browner, currently President Barack Obama's energy and climate czar, the EPA in the mid-1990s decided that federal regulation was unnecessary. "There is no evidence that the hydraulic fracturing at issue has resulted in any contamination or endangerment of underground sources of drinking water," Browner wrote in 1995 as head of the EPA in a letter rejecting federal oversight of a potentially precedent-setting case in Alabama.
In the House, the bill was introduced by Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., and Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., and in the Senate, by Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
Hinchey said the exemption "enabled energy companies to pump enormous amounts of toxins such as benzene and toluene into the ground that then jeopardize the quality of drinking water." Also, some environmentalists and lawmakers are concerned the water supplies needed for the fracking process could over-tap sources used for drinking.
But the natural-gas industry says that operators are required by law to report the chemicals they use to the state authorities and wouldn't be granted permits if their operations threatened public health, safety or supplies.
Devon's Ewing said the three main chemicals used in the process besides water and sand are guar - which is used in chewing gum - soap similar to what's used in dish detergent, and biocides that kill bacteria in the reservoir. Chemicals such as benzene can be released from the reservoir, but are contained and regulated by the state.
Industry officials also say most of the reservoirs are thousands of feet below drinking water tables, with massive rock barriers preventing any type of contamination.
Anadarko's Christiansen said "Since 1947, there's been a million applications of hydraulic fracturing and not a single documented case of water contamination credibly tied to fracking."
It is unclear how much support the bill will received in both chambers, as lawmakers have been so far unsuccessful in their attempts to include the legislation in energy bills considered in the key committees. Although House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., has indicated he supports federal regulation, he didn't allow it to be added as an amendment to the energy and climate bill his panel passed last month, not wanting to upset the delicate compromise he had crafted.
The proposal also isn't included in the oil and gas section of the broad energy bill the Senate Energy and Commerce Committee is near completing.
Furthermore, it's unclear whether the Obama Administration would want to place a hurdle of any sort in front of natural gas development. Natural gas has much lower carbon dioxide emissions compared to oil and coal, and is vital to the administration's goal of cutting greenhouse gases in a low-carbon economy. In their congressional offices, both Obama and his now chief of staff Rahm Emanuel sponsored legislation encouraging natural gas vehicles, which would largely rely on unconventional resources.
- By Ian Talley, Dow Jones Newswires; (202) 862-9285; ian.talley@dowjones.com;
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--U.S. lawmakers Tuesday unveiled a bill that industry warns could prevent development of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas by putting regulation of a key production technique under federal oversight.
It is unclear how much support the proposal could get in Congress or from the White House, but the oil and natural-gas industry has already geared up for a fight to oppose the provision given its potential impact on the sector.
The legislation would repeal an exemption for the process of "hydraulic fracturing" in the Safe Drinking Water Act that requires disclosure of the chemicals used the production process.
By forcing hydraulic water, sand and a small percentage of lubricating chemicals into unconventional types of reservoirs called tight sand and shale gas, companies are able to fracture underground rocks and release the trapped gas not traditionally accessible. States' offices, such as Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection, currently regulate the 60-year-old practice.
Despite its history, "fracking" has gained recent attention as geologists have discovered massive unconventional natural-gas resources around the U.S., multiplying estimates of the nation's future production. For example, the Marcellus deposit that lies under Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio and New York is estimated to hold more than 500 trillion cubic feet, compared to total conventional natural-gas resource estimates in the U.S. of around 378 trillion cubic feet, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
Critics of the exemption say federal oversight is needed to protect drinking-water supplies, but proponents say state regulation is sufficient. Industry officials say the EPA isn't prepared to administer oil and gas permitting and federal regulation could lead to long delays, court cases and possible permit rejections.
That's why companies such as Range Resources Corp. (RRC), EOG Resources Inc. (EOG), Devon Energy Corp. (DVN), Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA) and Chesapeake Energy Corp. (CHK) are lobbying against the measure.
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (APC) spokesman John Christinansen said given state oversight, federal regulation is unnecessary and could at the very least delay new development of unconventional natural gas. "It would result in higher energy costs because it will discourage production," he said.
Jay Ewing, the manager of completion and construction at Devon Energy's Barnett field in North Texas, says the ultimate fear of federal regulation "is totally eliminating hydraulic fracturing, and that would eliminate a lot of resources."
Pressed at a recent congressional hearing, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said her office would review the EPA's previous decisions not to push for federal regulation.
Under Carol Browner, currently President Barack Obama's energy and climate czar, the EPA in the mid-1990s decided that federal regulation was unnecessary. "There is no evidence that the hydraulic fracturing at issue has resulted in any contamination or endangerment of underground sources of drinking water," Browner wrote in 1995 as head of the EPA in a letter rejecting federal oversight of a potentially precedent-setting case in Alabama.
In the House, the bill was introduced by Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., and Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., and in the Senate, by Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
Hinchey said the exemption "enabled energy companies to pump enormous amounts of toxins such as benzene and toluene into the ground that then jeopardize the quality of drinking water." Also, some environmentalists and lawmakers are concerned the water supplies needed for the fracking process could over-tap sources used for drinking.
But the natural-gas industry says that operators are required by law to report the chemicals they use to the state authorities and wouldn't be granted permits if their operations threatened public health, safety or supplies.
Devon's Ewing said the three main chemicals used in the process besides water and sand are guar - which is used in chewing gum - soap similar to what's used in dish detergent, and biocides that kill bacteria in the reservoir. Chemicals such as benzene can be released from the reservoir, but are contained and regulated by the state.
Industry officials also say most of the reservoirs are thousands of feet below drinking water tables, with massive rock barriers preventing any type of contamination.
Anadarko's Christiansen said "Since 1947, there's been a million applications of hydraulic fracturing and not a single documented case of water contamination credibly tied to fracking."
It is unclear how much support the bill will received in both chambers, as lawmakers have been so far unsuccessful in their attempts to include the legislation in energy bills considered in the key committees. Although House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., has indicated he supports federal regulation, he didn't allow it to be added as an amendment to the energy and climate bill his panel passed last month, not wanting to upset the delicate compromise he had crafted.
The proposal also isn't included in the oil and gas section of the broad energy bill the Senate Energy and Commerce Committee is near completing.
Furthermore, it's unclear whether the Obama Administration would want to place a hurdle of any sort in front of natural gas development. Natural gas has much lower carbon dioxide emissions compared to oil and coal, and is vital to the administration's goal of cutting greenhouse gases in a low-carbon economy. In their congressional offices, both Obama and his now chief of staff Rahm Emanuel sponsored legislation encouraging natural gas vehicles, which would largely rely on unconventional resources.
- By Ian Talley, Dow Jones Newswires; (202) 862-9285; ian.talley@dowjones.com;
Views: 36
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on
-
I am from the government and here to help, LOL
-
Permalink Reply by sesport on
-
Perhaps we should err on the side of caution in these matters ... at least for now? It would be more difficult to undo any serious damage than to undo a bill.
best & thanks - sesport :0)
-
Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on
-
I still haven't heard any reason I consider valid to not require disclosure of the exact chemicals being used. Requiring disclosure of chemicals used doesn't mean that anyone would have to stop fracking.
"biocides" is an interesting term, if you look it up.
biocide
1. Any substance that can destroy living organisms
-
Permalink Reply by sesport on
-
Maybe if Martha Stewart & Paula Dean talk to the big industry, they can convince O&G how profitable it is to publish & sell "secret recipes." lol
Disclosure of chemicals is one reason why I said to err on the side of caution. I don't know if the states alone can legislate & enforce that or whether it also needs federal teeth.
best :0)
-
Permalink Reply by Oree on
-
Yes they do its called a MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) it is an OSHA rule
-
Permalink Reply by Dorcheated A1 on
-
oree,
Man you talk about a pain in the butt, mine is about 500 pages. Any substance that I have located on this property is in that book. I have to have it's chemical breakdown and the whole works, and anytime I bring a new substance in, it has to go in that book.
-
Permalink Reply by jlgm on
-
Would you mind explaining how those unused materials are disposed of when they're no longer useable?
-
Permalink Reply by sesport on
-
Okay, I just realized, if we want some folks to "get off the fence" in terms of that poll of Keith's, we need you 3 members to enlighten us a little more. If we want to be able to tell our elected officials to go ahead with this or stop the nonsense, tell us why it should be done either way so we have a basic working knowledge and can address it with conviction.
Braveheart - You seem to know most about the cocktail recipe. I think I remember ShaleGeo telling me about frac fluid being like anti-freeze. (SG, if I cited you incorrectly, I apologize in advance) And it's been discussed that the different companies have different recipes. What is the "basic" recipe? (I know, it's posted somewhere. If you don't feel like being redundant, then don't. But it sure would help. I find myself repeating the same things many times over where I work.) Why aren't frac workers wearing haz-mat suits when they handle this stuff? Have you ever seen what happens when, say, frac fluid comes in contact with the skin? What is required for effective clean up so the chemicals don't absorb into the ground and migrate into the water supplies ('cause ya' know they're talking about drilling somewhere around Cross Lake, too.)? Are there fumes as was alluded to in the news reports from Cattle-gate? If so, why were the animals affected and not the humans?
oree - What can you tell members who don't know about the MSDS?
DC - Seems you're knowledgeable about keeping those logs/books. Why don't you explain how they're kept & how they're checked? How often are they checked? What kind of penalties and/or consequences do you know about if the books aren't in order? Are your particular books open for public inspection, or do you turn them over to the government agency with oversight? How long does it take for them to collect those books from you until they may or may not be public record?
Then folks could decide which side of this topic they're on, decide which way to swing Keith's poll.
(Oh brother, I just proofread and realized someone hit the scarlet ?, didn't they!)
You guys are great & thanks - sesport :0)
-
Permalink Reply by sesport on
-
But Braveheart, you have to admit, when there is the potential for drinking water contamination we're not advised through the media to make very dilute cocktails of drinking water with Chlorox, we're advised to boil.
And I will admit I've never heard of anyone suffering ill effects from swallowing pool water. If I'm not mistaken (which there is the likelihood I could be), some chlorine is added to city water anyway.
I think the question is what specifically is the biocide used in fracing, in what ratio to the rest of the "recipe," and what amount is considered safe and/or harmful.
The other question is whether we step up and take ownership of this issue ourselves, can we put enough teeth into it for the sake of all, or should federal legislation/regulation/oversight be the ones responsible?
Thanks & best :0)
-
Permalink Reply by sesport on
-
Braveheart - I somehow get the feeling that you are (once again) irritated? with me. This topic is about whether this/these legislation(s), regulation(s) will shut down production. IMMVHO, operations & production are currently at a crawl. We've got time here to sort this out, the feds want to look at it. Letting this go by the wayside right this minute isn't going to speed up operations & production, there are still the other factors of ng prices, ng in storage, capital to drill that are influencing the "let's get 'er done" factor.
And again, IMMVHO, the HS is in it's infancy, why not try to get it as close as possible to right for the benefit of all concerned now?
BTW, 49% is a significantly high number, again, IM layman's O only.
So, once again, we agree to disagree.
best ... sincerely - :0)
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
399 members
-
Cass County, TX
119 members
-
Franklin County, Texas
8 members
-
Rusk County
97 members
-
Vernon Parish
59 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
242 members
-
Sabine County, Texas
172 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
Angelina County, TX
87 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
